The Rabbit Died

At one time those were the code words meaning that a woman was pregnant. We didn't say the word “pregnant” in public then. We were too delicate. Maybe the rabbit didn't think so, though. She gave her life to confirm (or not to confirm – she died irrespective of the test's outcome) the pregnancy. Actually she didn't really “give” her life. (It was taken from her by some doctor or lab technician who wanted to take a peek at her ovaries.) But she died for a good cause. Her involuntary forfeiture made the arrival of the stork more understandable.

Times change, though. Nowadays even if we didn't have more advanced tests – ones not requiring the sacrifice of the rabbit – we would find a way to protect the poor animal from harm, even if we chose to kill the fetus. The protection of animals has become an important priority in our culture, and among strict vegans (it would be disingenuous to suggest that all vegans are cut from the same cloth) it is considered improper to “exploit” animals in any way. Many, in fact, eschew almonds (http://almondsarenotvegan.com/) because the pollination of almond trees requires bees. (Of course, there's no denying the fact that if that is your approach, virtually all the fruits and vegetables we eat – or use for clothing, construction, etc. – suffer from the same kind of shortcoming (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_crop_plants_pollinated_by_bees) which limits the intake of those who won't eat animal products either. But I won't pursue that point except to note that wiseGEEK tells us that honey bees pollinate about $15 billion worth of crops in the United States each year. So it's an economic issue as well as a moral one.

We live in a time of animal rights – and human wrongs. While cruelty to animals ought not be accepted, advocates of those rights – those who speak for animals – sometimes lack perspective. According to the first chapter of the Bible, “G-d said 'Let us make man in our image and likeness. Let him dominate the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky … and every land animal that walks the earth. … G-d said to them [humans], … Fill the land and conquer it.
'” Not everyone accepts this teaching, but it is hard to contradict the evolutionary tree that puts humans at the top of the animal kingdom – a fact that those who disdain “speciesism” consider anthropocentric. (Plants and other Eukaryota are beneath, while farther down the tree are the Archaea and Bacteria. Where viruses fit in is not clear. But what is evident is that the distinction between plants and animals simply reflects which branches we mark off as being significant. The DNA sequences of all living things have much in common because they ultimately evolved from the same common ancestors. Humans, for example, share about 50% of the same DNA sequences that occur in bananas.) There is a hierarchy, however, whether we're comfortable with that fact or not.  (Incidentally, see http://www.wisegeek.com/are-vegetables-dead-when-you-buy-them-at-a-grocery-store.htm. It may be food for thought for some vegans.) 

Notwithstanding the reality, however, there are many whose mission it is to prevent exploitation of animals and to protect them from humanity (as an example, see http://www.vegsource.com/jo/essays/namegame.htm). For some the commitment is absolute, even if the implications are not fully appreciated. For example, electricity which is usually produced through the burning of fossil fuels, and transportation based on the same form of energy do not raise a second thought, while a well-kept horse who pulls a wagon is being exploited.

There are, however, exceptions to the rules of animal protection. No one would think of trying to stop a large fish from eating one that is smaller, nor prevent a lion from stalking an antelope. And you'd probably fail if you tried switching a predator to kale. Nurture shouldn't be, and, in fact, isn't always victorious over nature. Nor morality over reality. In terms of dietary preferences, for example, while some may view veganism as morally superior to carnivorism, the latter is normal, and not evil, for some species.

And animals have long played an important part in our lives. They were prominent in mythology (eg Pegasus, mermaids, and satyrs), we used them for prophesy (reading entrails), they were food and sacrifices, we hunted and fished – even using live bait, we used them for transportation and agriculture, pulling carriages and chariots among other things, and we benefit even now from their use socially and for entertainment, as guide dogs and therapy animals and in zoos. And, as I have mentioned, they played a large part in our farming (herding and providing organic manure in addition to pulling plows), medicine (think cow pox and Botox for example), as well as house pets (do veterinarians exploit animals?).

Which of these uses represents inappropriate use? Which is inherently evil? Cannibalism, of course. But to avoid them all we'd have to go back hundreds or thousands of years, and even then we wouldn't succeed. We have always exploited animals for our benefit – and some of them have eaten us when they had the chance. Nature has made us what we are. Our intelligence – which is greater than that of a banana or a rabbit – has given us domain over many other forms of life.

My intelligence, however, sets the limits for me. I oppose cruelty, to animals – human and not. That includes medical use as well as hunting for sport. But I do not turn away from reality. I would not bounce a ball on an ant, but I recognize that I step on some unintentionally. And I endorse the use of medicines to kill parasites – vegetable or animal. I see the value of a veterinarian if not a taxidermist. And a Saint Bernard with brandy.

And I love a steak.

Next episode: “Arts and Science” – We're in the “Age of Enlightenment,” but not of discernment.